Shared publicly  - 
David Steinmuller's profile photoJonathan Henry's profile photoCheri Seymour's profile photoRobert Pitts's profile photo
t grey
I'm glad they declared it an "unlawful assembly" first, otherwise it might not have been properly justified.
t grey
Great, I really wanted to punch some hippies but it was really hard to defend that casually pepper spraying cops behavior. It turns out it's OK now, though, that I know what really happened...those unarmed seated hippies were being total jerkfaces! Pepper spray at will, officers!
I think many of the news outlets verbally described the events, but cherry picked the footage to run on the news. Power of Images vs Power of Words!
It is amazing that we so many people with cameras, and so few alternate photos/videos. Maybe it just takes time(?)
"use of force" - there was none needed! People sitting down, not being aggressive - why use any force at all?
Check 6:55. "Mic check. If you let them go, we will let you leave."

I'm pretty sure it's unlawful to detain a police officer.
You don't get it. By sitting in the way, they were detaining the police officers.
+Dave Slack ... and how exactly do you see the speaking of those words to equate to detention of police officers?
They were sitting there in a circle, +Dan McManus, in the way, the police officers could not leave without trampling them.
What on earth are that many police doing there in the first place - in riot gear with truncheons! Talk about massive over-reaction. Kent-State lite.
Watch, at around 13:00, when the police threaten to use pepper spray. The students know it's going to happen, they shout out warnings, "cover your eyes, cover your mouth." Then another set of officers approaches from outside the circle ordering people to move aside.

Have you people watched the video?
7:30 - Police officer to sitting students, one at a time asking them, "Do you understand if you remain here you will be subject to use of force?" The ones asked on the video all nod responding yes. Sooo... where's that clip on the nightly news shows? They volunteered for it.
+Evangelo Dermatis yes.. but show me the part where the cops want to leave and there is any resistance from the students?
Passive resistance, they sat on the ground in a way that the police could not leave. After watching this video, I'm convinced the police were reluctant to take any violent action.
Ah, well, now that I see the whole, there was still no reason use pepper spray...on students...just sitting on the ground...clearly willing to be arrested. +Dave Slack you're kidding, right. The police could have left at any time. Gimme a break.
They stood their ground. It was peaceful on the students part. I was at Southern University in 72 when they used canisters shot by guns. Two students were killed. Denver Smith & Leonard Brown. They were Black. No one cared.
No, +christian sternal, they could not have left without trampling the students in their way. Look at the students sitting on the ground with their backs to the officers, sitting closely together so nobody could get by.
And yes, they could have left by forcing their way out. Don't you think that would have provoked a violent response?
Thank you ACLU :)

"Police and government officials are allowed to place certain nondiscriminatory and narrowly drawn "time, place and manner" restrictions on the exercise of First Amendment rights. "

"If you disobey the property owner's rules, they can order you off their property (and have you arrested for trespassing if you do not comply)."

What should I do if my rights are being violated by a police officer?
It rarely does any good to argue with a street patrol officer. Ask to talk to a supervisor and explain your position to him or her. Point out that you are not disrupting anyone else's activity and that the First Amendment protects your actions. If you do not obey an officer, you might be arrested and taken from the scene. You should not be convicted if a court concludes that your First Amendment rights have been violated.
Good find, +Jeff Schultz.

Note that before the pepper spray started flying, the students were disrupting the officer's activities by barricading them in a circle.
Yes, we've watched. But the question remains - for no threat, why is there a show of force?
Lets look at the facts.. .. The students have the right to be on campus, that's their school.. the US law allows for freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. The students pay their taxes and provide the salary for those cops to protect them from harm. The fact is, with most families these days, its hard to pay for everything, so most students also have loans that have unfair pay back plans that drain everything they will make in the future. Most of the students have mom and dads that are out of work and they are there to voice their hope.. so for anyone to think that those students gathered there to cause problems with the law or surround cops so they couldn't escape, then you must be really disconnected from the world we live in..
It's unlawful to block the sidewalk as well, which is irrelevant to the decision as to whether you should use pepper spray or not. (BTW, it doesn't appear he pepper sprayed the guy screaming in the video or the people that theoretically "surrounded" them....)
Several questions and observations:
Why were the police in riot gear for a peaceful demonstration?
Why was force used on students who were clearly acting with no threat to safety or possible violence?
Why were some of the students arrested in the first place?
Why were so many students supporting the action if it was unwarranted?
@ Dave Slack - Of course the police were reluctant to use the pepper spray. According to the law they are only supposed to use force if imminent danger to public safety is at hand. These students didn't look too dangerous. The police are in the unfortunate position of being given orders from higher up.
"should you remain in the area, regardless of your reason..." Press?

"passive resistance" Additional charges?

Geesh, for me, the sequence of events seem even worse in their entirety.
So if you TELL someone you're going to violate their Constitutional Rights, that makes it OK...

So, if I were to TELL someone "Hey, if you don't get give me that nice car, I'll have to take it from you", it'll be okay when I take it from them because I warned them, right?

All I see here are a bunch of pigs who showed up decked out for a fight, arrested peaceful protesters, and then got all offended when witnesses demanded they not arrest peaceful protestors.
Can somebody tell me where was the danger for the police? Were they afraid to be late for dinner?
Can someone tell me why the police were there in the first place? Especially with riot gear? Where was the riot? It looked like a riot was trying to be started by the cops, but they were quite unsuccessful.
It's amazing to hear people make up poor excuses to justify this act of cowardliness.
+David Haddad I agree with your comment about choice of chants. To their credit, many did change fairly quickly. Ideally, the police aren't the enemy - they are meant to "protect and serve" the people.
If an armed and trained police officer can't arrest non-violent students asserting peaceful assembly rights without force they are inept and incompetent to do their job.

Incompetence is no defense for violating the protocol for use of chemical weapons as has been established by the people who developed the spray and its correct implementation.
I just find it amazing how many people think it's okay to submit to an authoritarian state, so long as that authoritarian state is internally consistent.
Well, I expect they did have guns, +Elizabeth Whitmire. Should they have used them on the students? I think pepper spray was a much less lethal action.
Maybe in the future, things will be different, but as for now, if a police officer gives me a lawful order, I comply.
What the crowd thought is also irrelevant, and I question your interpretation. If I say "I've got your nose!" am I a threat to your face? The officers don't seem shaken or scared in the slightest and they didn't even target the use of pepper spray at the people threatening or blocking them (in theory).
+Dave Slack You miss the point entirely. If they were armed, they shouldn't have felt detained. As for having their way blocked, all that was needed was to physically lift a student so that part of the path would be cleared. Not harming any students, or anyone else. If that's what it was about, that's the easy part.
I think your point, +Elizabeth Whitmire, is that you don't like the student's being pepper sprayed and wish a different action had been used. My point is that the students should not have been detaining the officers by encircling them.
+Alvin Brinson and +Jose Rivera - if you want to talk about following orders, let's talk about this: and whether or not the POLICE officers should be following the orders that they're being given.

And also +Marla Hughes who are the owners of this property that you are referring to? Last time I checked, it is a PUBLIC university. To have an owner, it needs to be private. Public space is owned by ALL OF US!
Sounds good, +Kyle Cooke. I'm going to set up an industrial mill on the public land that belongs to all of us. There are a few buildings in the way that will need to be bulldozed, but that's ok because it's public land.

We're getting ridiculous here, folks. :) There are laws that govern certain behavior. I'm not here to argue which ones were broken or not. But if we are going to survive as a society, laws are a necessity. Pretty sure detaining police officers is against the law.
The video is amazing in what it reveals. Not only about the students and the police and the events that led up to the situation, but in the opinions of those who have now viewed it.

I am fascinated how the same video can be interpreted two completely different ways.
Personally, if you find me doing something so blatantly stupid and purposely disobeying a lawful order, please by all means pepper spray the shit out of me. They were warned, end of story. Our freedoms do not, and should not, make us impervious to repercussions for unlawful behavior.
It's not about whether the officers were threatened, +David Haddad. It's about the fact that they were fulfilling their orders (arresting students who were assembling) and were being prevented from doing that. That's why the pepper spray happened.
Just goes to show that there are many sides to a story.
+Alvin Brinson , what unlawful order did the police give? Move off the sidewalk so I can get a patrol car in here? They didn't spray anyone else, just the people who refused to make way.
This video is real journalism. What you saw on TV represents the sad state of "professional" journalism.
Saying "F**k the cops," over and over and "we will let you leave" showed a lot of hubris and not much intelligence. Complete silence would probably have been much more effective as a means of passive resistance, but not likely to happen with a high testosterone approach by both sides. Nonetheless, an overreaction by the campus "rent-a-cops" who usually aren't actually real cops, though I don't know about the ones in this particular case.
They had riot gear. I'd be interested to hear whether they were "rent-a-cops" or not.
Thanks +Guy Kawasaki, but I'm afraid I just can't stand to look at these kinds of videos ANY MORE. I just get too angry. I'm not angry by nature and it really doens't make me feel good. I whole heartedly support #OWS but the videos of outright inhumane acts are appalling and I can no longer stand to watch the injustices occur without some kind of consequences.
Riot gear isn't always an indicator anymore. They are clearly employed by the university, but I know a couple of guys who used to be university campus cops and they definitely were not trained police officers. So, maybe rent-a-cop was a misnomer. On the other hand, that's not to say that "trained law enforcement" officers wouldn't have acted the same way or worse in that situation.
It is shame that people do not do anything while they are being sprayed.
+David Haddad Just because you've constructed a little DailyKos/HuffPo/DemUnderground liberal echo chamber in your circles doesn't mean somebody like +Guy Kawasaki might not poke a little hole in it once in a while. No, G+ is not the liberal haven you think it to be. And "thought" is not synonymous with "leftist thought".

Can just hear the heads exploding trying to construct excuses...
The cops showed up because they were asked to show up by Linda Katehi of UC Davis. The police might have personally preferred to just let the students be but they would be in dereliction of duty. The police are not the criminals here, the school administration is. The administration should have taken a prominent role in handling the situation. Instead they handed that responsibility over to cops, who have intensive training in handling mob situation. Probably the wrong training for the situation but they were doing what they were trained to do.

The problem is a systemic lack of tolerance for "disobedience", not a cop who was hired to do a job. Although, some cops, like Anthony Bologna in NYC, are sociopaths. But they are not the majority.
Nobody seems to be able to come up with solid reasons why he needed to use pepper spray or why he targeted who he targeted with it, or what goal it accomplished in the end besides spreading fear and then later outrage.

So why don't you shift the argument to whether they deserved to be arrested or not and then pretend like being pepper sprayed is just part of being arrested? That way, it's something you can actually debate with a straight face!

That's some professional trolling advice, there.
+Dave Slack They weren't surrounded in such a way that they couldn't just walk away - as demonstrated by the sprayer when he calmly (and effortlessly) steps over the seated students to get a nice clear face shot.
+Scott Curtis, please watch the video. The cops inside the circle did not spray anything. A new set of cops came from outside the circle and told the people on the sidewalk to move aside. When they did not, the pepper spray came out.

Please people, watch the video.
The law of the land is the Constitution. No where in the constitution does it say anything about us having to obey every command given by an officer. We were given these rights in order to protect us FROM the police. This is based off of what happened leading up to the revolution with the officers from Britain. Our founding fathers WANTED us to rebel if things got out of hand with the government. For instance, from Thomas Jefferson:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

This video is showing people's first amendment (the right to peacefully assemble) and their eighth amendment (the right against cruel and unusual punishment) rights being taken away from them. We can not just sit idly by while the people of the 1% continue to give orders like this. We can't just submit to their orders or NOTHING will ever change! I am not against the police. I have many good friends who are police officers, but I am against the people giving them orders, and when they continue to not refuse to follow these orders, I unfortunately have to be against them. They need to be serving 99% of us, not 1%.
I did watch it. My point still stands. The (new cop) stepped in and out of the circle, with no resistence or effort. Nobody was detained in this situation.
I just watched it again, Scott. Where do you see a step in and a step out?
Why were the police in riot gear? To be prepared. They had no idea if the protest was going to become violent or not. Hope for the best, plan for the worst. Police also have to abide by Escalation of Force rules to prevent unneeded injury to others. Pepper spray is not a lethal weapon. The students blocking the path had their arms interlinked, preventing the police from moving them individually. And detaining police from carrying out their duties is just cause for an Escalation of Force.
+David Haddad, where do you see a new set of cops step INTO the circle? They sprayed from outside the circle, see earlier in the video where the students are seated with their backs toward the cops inside the circle.
+Jeremy Stark The Chancellor has gone on record, stating that she instructed the 'cops' to remove the tents only, and that the students should not be removed or harmed.
Isn't this supposed to be an institution of higher learning? Let's see, I'm told to leave or I'll be arrested and they may use force. I decide to call their bluff and then whine like the "entitlement" child I am when they follow through on their statements.

I pity our future if this is what our colleges are turning out.
This was not a peaceful protest. The crowd was shouting, which is inherently aggressive and that is not a good way to protest, because it doesn't get anyone anywhere. The point of protest is to get a message across, so everyone can see the problem and want to fix it, not to yell "My rights are gone!" Do something more productive and, if possible, silently.
+Augustus Grochau I didn't know shouting was an offense worthy of violence. No matter what they are shouting, they have a right to shout it.
+Dave Slack admittedly it isn't as clear in this video, but Pike is standing with the group of cops in the circle for most of that build up, then after some movement of people he's there in front of them spraying away. All the other main vids show him step over the seated students.
+Scott Curtis, I don't think the guy who was in the middle of the circle is the guy who sprayed. You mention the name Pike, which I've heard is the guy who did the pepper spraying. If that's so, I don't think the guy in the middle is Pike.

However, I would like to see a video that you are referring to. I'll look around. If you don't mind posting one, I'd be grateful.
+Dave Slack It is indeed him. As I say, the other vids make this more obvious, when you see that same cop in the middle, step over and spray away.
+Scott Curtis, I found another video, right at the beginning it appears someone is stepping from inside to outside of the circle. This video doesn't show it well, but that one does.
+Augustus Grochau: Ah, so that's why it's okay to pop your wife in the mouth when she's yelling at you without fear of being charged for assault -- she wasn't being peaceful by keeping her mouth shut, so it's okay to punch her out! (/sarcmark)

+Morgan Ramsay: Wow, another person unclear on the concept. I can be as nasty and rude as I want to be, because (as my mom used to say) "words can never harm me"... or them. If someone chooses (note that they have a CHOICE here) to perpetrate (or threaten) violence against me for my words, that's terrorism.

I choose NOT to be rude as a rule, but when provoked may use words in anger. I would NOT turn around and pepper spray someone just for being rude. If they were threatening me with violence, on the other hand, I believe I, too, would employ everyone's favorite condiment in a can. ;-)
+Morgan Ramsay Just because our Government has since put limitations on Free Speech does not mean that it is right or just. Free speech is just that; FREE. Our governments interpretation of it does not change the principle itself.

+Augustus Grochau Who was disrupting the peace? It surely wasn't the protesters.
+Yohannon Hadden I'm not trying to say that the pepper spray was justified, good analogy by the way, I'm saying they aren't doing anything for their cause just by yelling and that they're being hypocrites for calling it peaceful. There are better ways that actually work.
+Brandon Dowdy It's only a disruption of peace if you have ears that work normally. People don't appreciate shouting.
I've got little sympathy for the students, they were being confrontational, making demands, interfering with an arrest, etc. The proper way to protest is to let the police do their thing and then file lawsuits if the police broke any laws.

However, when the officer is able to walk up to each protester and have a conversation with them, there is no need to use pepper spray or any other use of force. And it's the police that I hold to a higher standard. Simply tell the protesters they will be arrested if they impede and arrest them. If they use force resisting arrest, then use the minimum necessary force in response. Or if the mob attacks the officers, then use the pepper spray. By skipping over the non-violent options, I think the officers should be charged with assault and be terminated.
+Dave Slack haha you are either a cop or a pathetic man. Thank god you weren't called upon during civil right era " you guys can't see that black man clearly deserved to be beat"

Get out of this country, your pathetic and people like you need to be called out.
I agree with the fact that there are restrictions to free speech. The classic one is that you can't yell fire in a crowded building or people may be trampled to death. I don't see how this was a limitation of that. They are protesting and not using any force aka they are being peaceful. The words never would have been used anyway if the cops hadn't shown up in riot gear to a peaceful assembly, which they have the right to do according to the first amendment. That being said, I don't think it was the best idea to use the words that they did, but the words in themselves do not give the cops the right to do what they did.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's the First Amendment. As I said before, just because our government has since put limitations on it, does not make it just. This is why our country is so messed up. The Government keeps infringing on our rights, and you guys just go along with it. Which makes you part of the problem.

+Augustus Grochau If the police hadn't of come in and tried to break up a peaceful protest, they wouldn't have been shouting. So I ask again, who was disrupting the peace?
They had very good reason to be angry, with an 81% tuition hike, and the police brutality at UC Berkley the week before.
Oh no, not the shouting students! Considering the crowd is doing nothing but shouting it is not very aggressive, however encircling the cops could be considered that (but I don't think they were completely encircled).

The reinforcement cops (seen at around 13:00 with a vehicle) could have continued moving people aside to let the other officers through since most people seemed compliant except for the sidewalk protesters.

If anything using the pepper spray would have been more likely to incite violence if the students were intent on causing them harm, especially with the numbers. In many of the protests the police have shown more aggression and violence than the protesters.

If they were just there to remove the tents and the few people they detained they could have avoided the sidewalk people rather than continuing a needless confrontation.

Both sides made some mistakes, however IMO the police made more.
+Brandon Dowdy honestly why waste your breathe on anyone who at all sides with the police in this video.

We need to start realizing our country is full of individuals who are complacent.

Why aren't we bringing up the fact that no one stormed the police? What happened to helping out fellow citizens?
+Brandon Dowdy They can be angry. They can speak. They can't speak so loudly. They were chanting before the cops showed up. Chants don't work that well. Do something better.
Laugh out loud. Now you want to take away peoples right to speak loudly? Edit: Maybe we should bring police into Libraries to help enforce the quiet zones
Not to mention voices are the only legal option for people to use to show their displeasure and try to bring about change.
+Augustus Grochau Who says they can't speak so loudly?
+Eddie Lu I know, but I feel like we all have a responsibility to inform them and try convince them to change before we abandon them.
+Trevor Reeves Shouting is unnecessary. It doesn't get people on your side. Do you enjoy it when people are yelling in an area which would normally be quiet? I'm talking about the right to calm public spaces as implied in the 9th Amendment.
Can we at least all agree that police need to be much, much smarter than this? They're not just protecting and serving the people who give them orders. They're (supposed to be) protecting and serving the public. Which includes the entitled crybabies, hacky sack hippies and careless big-mouthed jackasses with megaphones. Pepper spraying students like so many bugs, creating a violent situation where there wasn't one, inciting a crowd and then getting chased out of the park is total amateur night behavior.

At any point leading up to Pike's Protester Pepper-spray Tagging Event Extravaganza the police from inside or outside the students' dastardly, impenetrable Circle of Death could have, and should have, simply arrested and removed blockading students one at a time. It's clear from the tape that the kids were practicing passive resistance and were committed and ready to endure being arrested.

This was peaceful protest until a casual, yet blatant escalation of violence served to enrage the crowd and create a very precarious situation for both the students and the officers.

Sure, lawyers and some people on this thread may find ways to justify the actions taken here, but I think we all know this should have gone down very, very differently – without a cavalier cop with a big can of Whoop-ass making a grievous error in judgement.
+Dave Slack Lt. John Pike is the officer spraying and the senior officer on the UC Davis force. He was thrown off a police force previously for using biased language towards gays but that came out after he was suspended (with pay) along with another of the officers on the scene. And in the clip that was posted for days after the attack you can clearly see Pike step past the students easily. He was told to remove the tents so the lawn could be tended and not to interfere with the students. She had approved the protest which was against violent acts against the students a few days previously. +Marla Hughes You ascribe the thoughts and actions of the protesters based on the chants which were being 'led' by one not too clever individual. The first point of OWS is NO LEADERS; that gentleman didn't 'get it'. The crowd had enough sense to squash the F*** Police one on their own pretty quickly, at least. +Morgan Ramsay United States of America Constitution-Article I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The police were there to remove a camp which had been banned by the university. That is what the warnings at the beginning were for. While they were removing the tents they arrested a handful of protesters who attempted to stop them. They took the people who had been detained to a nearby sidewalk, and then the remaining protesters decided to encircle them and demand their release. The police were only there to remove the camp and then leave, and they would have done so had the protesters decided not to challenge them. The police probably could have climbed over the protesters sitting on the sidewalk, but it might have been difficult to carry the people they had detained over/through them.
+Brandon Dowdy Ok, but in the course of removing tents it looks like the cops had to deal with a lot of resistance. Also, the Chancellor might be playing a little cya. You can't just send cops in to remove peoples personal property and not expect resistance. If cops get resistance they use force to accomplish their mission. If the Chancellor did not want them to use force she, and/or several representatives, should have been down at the scene making sure things did not get out of hand. The cops did not have the authority to not allow things to get out of hand. The school could have stepped in and said "we will need to discuss this peacefully in the coming days" and sent the cops home. The cops couldn't do that so they forged ahead.
I would say that these protests would be circumstances where police would be fool-hardy to attempt to crack down on noise violations. That would open up a whole new debate and a suggestion that govt. is using minor infractions such as noise violations to suppress widespread public displeasure. First they say people shouldn't be able to protest violently (for obvious reasons), now they don't want people to protest non-violently because it is "unhygienic" and too loud. What is the point of a protest if you are not getting noticed?
+Jeremy Stark There was an interesting interview with one of the protesters who sat with the chancellor and watched the video of Lt Pike pepper spraying the students; she was very upset. She was also a bit intimidated to leave the building. She was told that the protesters were peaceful and wouldn't be aggressive. She was escorted by the protester who interviewed her and the protesters sat silently, although it was referred to as the Chancellor's 'walk of shame'. I've been gassed and much worse at political protests but that was before the advent of portable video cameras. Either way the proper deployment of pepper spray in an outdoor environment is supposed to be from a distance of fifteen feet.
+Augustus Grochau Whether you think shouting is ineffective and unnecessary or not. That doesn't make it illegal.
+Jeremy Stark I agree that she should've done more to keep the violence away, and not sent the cops there in the first place, but the cops could have easily just used their common sense to see that the protesters weren't harming anyone, instead of just following orders.
+David Haddad 9th Amendment, the rights of people that are not specifically enumerated. Yelling is not something people enjoy.
+Brandon Dowdy Okay, not illegal. The cops shouldn't have showed up. Both sides reacted badly.

I say again, there are other, better ways to protest. When has yelling for something worked in history? It doesn't work on parents, so why should it work on government. Deliberately disobeying an unjust law, then remaining peaceful and civilly disobedient while cops arrest you for it and getting it on the news is better. Writing a petition is better. Making posters and just holding them is better. These kids were not being civil. Neither were the cops. The demonstration wasn't even getting their message across and it just escalated into a big issue about cops being mean.
man.... it really is interesting (and in some ways disheartening) seeing how people come out of the woodwork on both sides when something like this is posted. Here are my two cents....

- I agree that the students themselves did not handle this as well as they could and should have. A silent protest with a 30 second chant every 5-10 mins just so no one can say "They have no actual demands" would have gone much further imo. The guy leading most of the chants was an idiot and a lot of the student body were daft for following along... I mean "fuck the police?"...really?

- I also laughed when I heard "we will let you go..." who were they kidding? If the cops wanted to leave they could at any point. If push came to shove the cops were more than well equipped with batons, pepper spray and what looked like paintball guns probably loaded with rubber bullets. Any of the people present chanting "we will let you go" were delusional if they actually thought they had a choice in the matter.

- By the same token the students didn't actually do anything and the police officers encircled never made an attempt to leave. If the students did try to actually detain the police from leaving and taking the students they had lined up into custody it would have looked bad on the protesters, not the officers and in that case the use of pepper spray I think would have been justified. This however did not happen. The cops never actually made any effort to leave the circle nor did they give the students warning ie: if you don't come with us, you will be sprayed. If you don't make a path for us to leave, you are committing a crime, escalating a situation and we will use necessary force to make our way through and defend ourselves and our subjects from anyone attempting to physically interfere... This did not happen either unfortunately. Instead the cop just sprayed the kids.

- And before people point out that the officer did inform the students sitting that they will be arrested, last time I checked being pepper sprayed is not standard arrest procedure.

- I'm also not sure if these were rent-a-cops or actual police. I would guess they were strictly campus security since they said at the beginning "If you are here when the police arrive you will be arrested". If they felt that the situation was escalating out of their control and they couldn't contain the riot or the students might actually try and detain them, they should have called the authorities and simply stayed put until they arrived to take over control of the scene.

In the end like I said the students didn't do the best job of handling the situation either, but this still doesn't change my opinion that the use of the spray was unwarranted and that there was no actual threat to the officers present. Someone mentioned that the students tried to call the officer's bluff and than whined when they got sprayed. Keep in mind that the cops could have just as easily called theirs and said "If you don't let us leave, we will call further backup and use force if necessary". Just because the cops on scene told them that force might be used against them if they stayed doesn't make it okay. </rant></essay>
If you watched the video you would know they had ALREADY arrested people and they were trying to transport those people to the vehicles for transport. They were then encircled by protesters who would not let them do their job. They THEN went to talk to the protesters they were about to spray ONE ON ONE told them that they would have no choice but to use force. They then gave multiple warnings that they would have no choice but to use force in order to carry out their job. They then gave not one, not two, but three warnings that it was about to happen. At some point those protesters became volunteers.
Wow! First I am amazed that I read through almost all of these thoughtful comments with my dinner. Some of you must have been commenting all day long. I applaud your commitment to the discussion. :). Even the marketing spammers that joined kind of late in the thread.

Kidding aside, I actually felt a bit anxious watching this. Even though knew the eventual outcome. By watching this it is easy to see how these situations can be incredibly fragile and escalate quickly. I can imagine myself sitting with the protestors getting all fired up while chanting. Then I can also empathize with the police who are trained how to handle these situations - through watching lots of police video where these things do escalate rapidly into dangerous situations. I am certain that must be in their heads...

In the end, aside from the arguments of who did what right or wrong, I am very glad for everyone involved, and the #ows movement, that this did not end worse than it did.

I am the 99%.
+James Amaral Oddly enough the behavior of the cops in this video would be explicitly illegal in a war zone or active California prison riot. This isn't a gray area.
+Charlie Harris Its weird you forget to mention Lt. Pikes Distinguished Service Medals for saving a fellow officer. Its almost as if you have a bias of some kind.
+Augustus Grochau From what I understand of the 9th amendment, it says that just because certain rights aren't included in the Constitution, it doesn't mean that the government is just in violating them. However, it is somewhat vague and has been interpreted differently by different people. So I could just as easily say that the 9th amendment guarantees us the right to make as much noise as we want in public spaces.

The Constitution was put in place to limit the power of the government, not the people.
+Matt Moore Forgive me, this is the first I'd heard that. Having lost most of my teeth to billy clubs while protesting Vietnam when I was a teen I admit that I do have a bias towards police. I tend to hold them to a higher standard of conduct than I do the average citizen. My oldest boy, after being injured as a Navy Seal served on the police force in my town and trained some of their SWAT people. Most of my information about Lt. Pike came from links here on G+ and although I think the information I've read was accurate I can certainly attend to the fact that it was if not biased than slanted.
There's a stadium in Jacksonville tonight, full of people yelling aggressively at the San Diego Chargers. I think they should all be pepper sprayed. 
"It isn't the rebels who cause the troubles in the world, it's the troubles that cause the rebels.'-Carl Oglesby
Really, +Augustus Grochau ? Thank you for pointing this out. Sometimes I get confused about which kinds of yelling are or should be illegal. There's so many. It's like trying to define "snow" in Eskimo.
Unlawful and deserving of a forceful attack by a police force are two entirely different things. The Constitution of the United States guarantees the right of the people to peacefully assemble. The school - and all the rest of the UC system - is public property paid for by the people of California and owned by the people of California. The students were protesting in a peaceful assembly. The police, sworn to protect those very students, turned the peaceful assembly into something else by their mere presence, their riot gear attire, and, ultimately, their use of non-lethal force against those students who they work for. Anyone who doesn't get this point does not understand the nature of the form of government (We the people) we hold dear in this nation. To think or suggest that the police somehow possess some authority beyond that which is given them by the people, is obscene on its face.
Okay, +christian sternal if you don't want me to tell you not to, don't equate places where people come in the hopes of cheering for their team and places where people come to walk or just sit down, maybe studying quietly or talking to their friends about nonsense.
I'm not advocating the violence of the police force either.
+Augustus Grochau Shouting is poor manners. These people seemed to be chanting in an effort to convey a message. Pepper spraying is to be used from fifteen feet away and even then it's poor manners. Having been in similar situations I think the water cannon would have been more effective and less violent but either way it was inappropriate for the situation. +Steve Tsuida This is not something new, sir. I've been discussing different aspects of this action and video for weeks.
+Matt Moore I did watch the video. It wasn't clear to me that the transport to take these students to the police station was present. I only saw the one cop car near the end. Nor was it clear to me whether the students were actually already under arrest or just being detained until the actual police arrived. I still haven't seen anyone clarify (with some proper info to back their info up either way mind you) whether the officers present were actual police officers or campus patrol. You'll have to excuse me, I don't live near UC Davis so I'm not sure what the local police uniforms or insignia look like. It seemed to me like they were waiting for transport/higher authority. That being said I could very well be wrong and you may be right, in that transport really was on scene and these were sanctioned police officers ready to take those who were sitting in the middle away. It still doesn't change my position. Even if that is the case they acted unjustly and without cause. Like I said, telling someone they will be maced doesn't make it okay. Furthermore, they communicated with the people sitting down that they are liable to be arrested and charged and that by staying there they are subjecting themselves to the possibility of physical force being used on them. If I was sitting there I'd take that as "Force may be used on you in the process of your eviction... ie: if you try to resist"..... not as "we will spray you while you sit and wait to be taken away."

Also while they may have communicated the possibility of physical force with the ones sitting down they did not at any point communicate this or anything else really with the crowd. (Besides the initial warnings and orders to disperse). Lets say you are correct (and like I said, you might very well be) and there was ready transport on the scene to take these students away, they were just being obstructed by the rest of the student body. After the students started chanting "we will let you leave if you let them go" at no point did Pike or any of the other officers get on a megaphone and say to those chanting "It is within our authority to detain and transport these students to a police station to be processed. We will now move them/bring in transportation. Make a lane. Anyone who attempts to physically interfere with these proceedings by either obstructing the way of an officer or a vehicle will be engaged in an illegal obstruction of police action. Any act of non compliance or attempt to block the actions of an officer will be seen as an act of assault on a police officer and will be met with due force, after which you will be charged as well." If they said this, repeated it once just in case people were too stupid to stop the chanting, and than proceeded to remove the students in their custody, I think things would have gone down differently. And if at that point students did actually try to physically stop the police from leaving or loading the rest of the students onto the transport, the cops would have been well within their right to use force. But this did not happen, and they didn't use force on those "stopping them from leaving" by encircling them. Pike sprayed the kids who were if anything the most docile ones in the crowd just quietly sitting in the ground in the middle.
13:20 my happiest moment of the whole clip. Students should stay in school and learn. What kind of pepper spray were the cops using? Don't they have anything stronger than that?
If you follow "lawful orders" is it still a demonstration?
Not trolling, +Marcel Kornblum. I just watched the video and have opinions based on that. You'll be the second person from this post that I've blocked, though. Peace, out.
Because they pay taxes or tuition they're allowed to be idiots? I was ashamed watching that video and it wasn't the police I was ashamed of. Good to know my initial defense of the police officers was accurate. The students were forewarned what would happen if they didn't follow a lawful directive. And saying that "we will allow you to leave" implies that if you don't comply with what they want, they won't let you leave. That is a threat.

Threatening police officers and refusing to follow a lawful directive sure doesn't sound "peaceful" to me. But whatever. People will believe what they want.

Mobs like that are dangerous. All it takes is one idiot to feel empowered to do something stupid and it explodes. You never know what's hiding behind one of these students. All these officers want to do is go home to their families at the end of their shifts, but guess what, they have a job to do. It's a thankless job that gets criticized for mistakes far more than praised for the things they do right.
Wait, why does telling them they're going to use unjustified actions justify the actions? If I tell you I'm going to shoot you if you don't stab all your children, and you don't stab all your children, am I then justified in shooting you?

Ok, maybe no one cares about me. If the police did that though? Hell, if they even had a law to back that kind of thing up? (Worse laws have existed with such enforcement).
I'm glad you said that, +Jon Doble. "Mobs like that are dangerous. All it takes is one idiot to feel empowered to do something stupid and it explodes." Unfortunately that one idiot happened to be Lt. Pike. His actions nearly ignited a powder keg. He might as well have been kicking puppies. And everyone knows that there is nothing that makes a crowd more hostile than cops in riot gear kicking puppies.
+Charlie Harris Completely understandable. I must say that that when I first heard this story, I thought it was reprehensible that police officers were doing this to protesters, I was rallying against these officers and Lt. Pike myself. It was not until I found out they were actively acting against the officers that my mind changed.
+Brendan Foley --- Nobody has a right to detain the police. If you try, they are COMPLETELY justified in arresting and/or removing you. Now that we've established that, just be glad they used pepper spray instead of using physical force such as grappling, tasers, or billy clubs... all of which can cause injury. Instead all the police did was give them some stingy eyes for an hour...
There's certainly enough blame to go around.

Chancellor Katehi shouldn't have called in the campus police to dismantle the students' tents in the first place. As the Chancellor of a center for higher education, she should have encouraged the students to particpate in peaceful protest and the expression of their concerns. If she were truly concerned with the students' safety, which she claims was her reason for removing the tents from the quad, she should have sent the campus police to PROTECT the students during the execution of their freedom of speech.

The campus police should not have been confrontational. These were unarmed students who, by most accounts, were peaceful until the police showed up in full riot gear to tear down their tents. There was no immediate or imminent threat posed by the tents, so there was no need to rush in like an assault force to raze the camp. They could have taken the time to reason and negotiate with the students to remove the tents on their own. Had the police use their negotiation skills to diffuse the situation, there would probably have been no need to use force.

The students are not blameless, either. They should have shown some common sense and restraint. I fully support the students' right to protest and to use Civil Disobedience against what they (and I) felt was an unlawful order to cease the lawful execution of their right to free speech. However, they should not have moved to surround the police. Nor should they have chanted "If you let them go, we will let you leave." Whether they were in any position to detain the heavily armed police force or not, and whether the police truly felt threatened by the unarmed students, is irrelevant. By chanting that implied but obviously empty threat, they weakened their moral superiority, tarnished their image as peaceful protestors, and gave the police an excuse to use force.

However, whether you feel the police were justified in using non-lethal force in that situation, the police are still guilty of using excessive force because they used the pepper spray in violation of the manufacturer's guidelines. First, the campus police used a 1.3 percent solution, which, according to the manufacturer, is meant to stop a bear. The authorized dose for tactical deployment is 0.2 percent. Second, the campus police sprayed it directly into the students' faces and mouths at a point blank range while the manufacturer guidelines say 6 feet is the minimum distance for use. To quote Karam Logham, the man who helped develop pepper spray into a weapons-grade material in the 1980s: “I have never seen such an inappropriate and improper use of chemical agents.” (Source:
It is funny how just because they are cops, that somehow makes their actions moral and right. If someone dressed in full riot gear walked onto public property, a public school in which my tuition and taxes pay for not only their salary but the very property I am standing on, and tries to forcibly get me to leave, simply because the uber-rich don't want the rest of the country hearing what I have to say, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with circling those infringing on our constitutional rights and asking them in the most unpleasant way to leave or asking them in the most unpleasant way to release American citizens who are being detained illegally. So what if the students encircled the police? The police had no right to be there in the first place! And so what if the students spoke out against the police? So students got pepper-sprayed because the police had their feelings hurt? ~ LOL

The police used pepper-spray not because they had to but because they wanted to punish and take revenge!

If rolls where reversed and the students pepper-sprayed the police, they would be held criminally liable, however the police were the ones that were in the wrong and doing something illegal, infringing on the students' Constitutional Rights. What a load of BS about the "dangers" of the students setting up camps ~ are you #$%#$% kidding me? Country USA in Oshkosh lasts days and huge crowds, hundreds of times bigger than the small group of students at UC Davis, camp and party for days yet they are not being forcibly removed from the grounds and having their tents and camps removed. Country USA patrons are causing far more trouble and are far more dangerous to each other because of the huge quantities of alcohol involved. The UC Davis students are only dangerous to a system that exploits the working and middle class while favoring the uber-wealth.

My point is this, if the police were not the police but a group that did exactly what the police did, they would be arrested and charged. The police are NOT above the law and cannot pick and choose which groups to harass and which not to simply because someone of wealth does not like the students' politics.

The students stood up, encircled and shouted at people sent to oppress them, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is a noble thing to do, stand up for what is right. It is the police that should have gotten the tear gas in order to stop their assault on the students.
I still don't see what makes assembly on a university campus unlawful, by the students of same university.
The problem I have with this "movement" as a whole is they have absolutely no organization of cause or any concrete plan of action. They haven't made clear at all what they want and the way they think it should happen. Just sitting around yelling won't get anything done unless you have a cause and are proposing a solution. If you have people coming to a protest just because it's the "in" thing to do at this moment it's more meaningless then a receipt for a donut.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The government has no authority to stop a peaceful protest. Period.
O well they asked nicely first, in that case it is totally OK to use violent force against seated non violent protesters. no, no good point they were acting like peaceful protesters, so now it's ok. What exactly is new about this? Did you assume that they just walked up and started spraying people, this is America out cops are well trained, and generally well ordered, non tyrannical peace keepers, it still doesn't make this ok
also detaining police officers? what are these cops North and South going Zax? Just walk out of the circle, or to the left, or around the line of seated students. "trample" is a ridiculously over exaggerated word choice. "Damn! months of training, years of experience, but this hippie drum circle has me completely trapped"

This it probably not an example of evil police corruption, but it was still a poor ass judgement call, and completely unnecessary.
oh my. The police didn't stop the assembly, nor did they intend to. (mind you, I can't speak to the intentions of their superior as they are not on the footage being presented, but I'm sure the officers in the street were more worried about getting home to supper -- late or not). The police are governed by very strict codes of conduct. The second they were threatened, the could absolutely have used the "guns that made feel less threatened" or the "Batons that made them not feel threatened" or the other host of things they had with them, including using their training to "take them into custody by force"... what they chose to do was to negotiate with, then use the least stringent amount of force to allow themselves to leave an area they had intended to leave in the first place. Unlawful detainment is bad unless it's done to authority -- right (I'm making the rash assumption that there are probably some anti-guatanamo bay folks in this discussion)? It's odd the way that the police are perceived by their uniform rather than by their humanity by people. I'm all for peaceful assembly, but these protests are becoming more of a burden to a movement that I thought had some valid points at the beginning, but the incessant bombardment has me going quite luke cold. In the 60s/70s, you needed to make a bigger statement due to the smaller media presence (no internet)... in the 1800s even more so ... but now, it's just becoming noise -- the protestors have made their statement and people agreed with them... now people are photoshopping their statements into goofy little phrases that diminish the initial effect. The coverage is getting away from them, they're doing a bad job at their propaganda management.

I support free speech, but that was not a non-violent assembly, it was not physically violent, but the police could no more move them by force and look as if they had acted correctly than the assembly could have thrown rocks and looked non-violent. It's a media war, not a physical one. It's a new world with the media being used as the main weapon... the authority looked as if they were down on this one, but this video rebuttal has them winning this engagement to me... they only targeted the folks who were directly threatening them (See above for an explanation of this).

The milgrim experiment referenced above actually shows the mob's ability to do bad things when told to by an authority... in this case the guy in the white shirt who was rallying the students against the police.

Somewhat rambling, but there is no logic deeper than surface observations in some of these posts that just keep parroting, authority bad, police state, etc. This isn't a black and white issue -- and most of you weren't there to feel whether or not the crowd seemed to the people surrounded as if it could turn physically hostile (again, mob mentality -- and "F*** the police" being chanted by some of the crowd, specifically the ones barring the way). You're talking about freedoms and somehow forgetting that the police should be afforded those same freedoms, even when in uniform... "Life and Liberty, etc."
I have read each and every comment and feel compelled to say that I'm absolutely shocked that anyone can argue the justification of this gross abuse of power. Whatever was said, whatever was implied, whatever the stupidity of a few, nothing I've seen, heard or read justifies the brutal and casual use of force against these demonstrators.

Regardless of who was standing where, how loud they may have been, how rude their choice of chant, whether they were actual police or security, if they'd been warned of imminent force or not, the fact remains the protest was lawful and the excessive force was unlawful as well as a heinous act in violation of the social contract between officers and the people whom they are sworn to protect. In the United States it is illegal to harm a person intentionally - unless you can prove you were legally justified in your actions. While Lt. Pike may have attempted to make a case for his life being endangered, the multiple videos and accounts show that was simply not the case. Ergo, illegal use of force.
+Lehel Babos The main chant was "We will let you leave, if you let them go.". On top of that, THIS video shows that each were told specifically what would happen. Fast Forward to 7:20 Occupy Davis Part 2
+Jason Quense They were committing a crime. Obstruction of justice is still illegal, correct?
+Steve Kellener The right to assemble at no point mentions, or protects the location. They had every freedom in the world to assemble, just not there. If it covered anywhere, can I choose the inside of Library of Congress with 40 of my friends? Of course not.
You have the right to assemble, just no location. It is a Catch-22. Good thing Gandhi and Martin Luther King did not wait for permits to protest.
+Colin Maddox nice try but under most policies and procedures the police were justified in their actions. Incompetence isn't based on sympathies. If you preferred pain compliance holds or the use of batons I think the appearance in the media would be far worse
Pepper Spray? They should have been given tranquilizer guns.
+David Haddad ,

I don't think that most people are making the argument that the police felt "threatened." The police had squad cars full of arrested protesters, and they couldn't leave because the remaining protesters had blocked them in. The police couldn't very well just drive over these people. They had to be moved. If the people would not move voluntarily, then the officers would have to take action. And I don't believe the officers had a less violent means of moving people who would not move voluntarily. Pepper spray was the least amount of force possible.
You've gotta learn at some point that you're not going to beat the Law on the frontline. As someone who has definitely been unjustly pepper sprayed, I can tell you that those students won't be impeding a police action any time soon. After watching all the footage, I can't think of what the police should've done. They were ASKING the kids to move! They DIDN'T. Hence the spray...
Those saying that the officers weren't threatened missed the point. The officers were being detained, they could not leave, and the chants from the students were indicative of the officer's predicament. Pike did an awful lot in an attempt to get them to move peacefully and they began mocking him. Mocking him isn't the issue either, that was merely incidental to the situation and shows us that the students were being defiant towards the police. They were resisting, and if the police officers had gone and simply marched through the crowd, knocking over students left and right, what sort of news story would that have made? "Police trample college students at peaceful protest for no apparent reason"? Get your heads out of your asses, people. One guy mentioned "Were they afraid they'd miss dinner?" and this is asinine because they would miss dinner since THEY WERE DETAINED. The police are not against you, they are against those who are breaking the law. There is no secret agenda of the police to ruin the lives of college students. Don't let the media brainwash you into thinking police brutality is on the rise as we become some sort of authoritarian society.
+David Haddad I know, right? /cc +Enrique Gutierrez

You know, it is becoming increasingly clear to me that the 1% may also be "feeling detained" by the 99% in this and other countries. :)

BTW the Police will be surprised to learn one day that the 1% will have their pensions cut just the same, when it comes time...
+Alex Schleber oh, man - don't pull me into this. haha! ... i'll say this much; those students were totally being violent. Use of chemical force is plainly justified. </sarcasm>
+Matt Moore not paying a parking ticket is also a crime, that doesn't make spraying a caustic chemical in the face of DMV visitor an appropriate or just response.
The point is most of the time police do not attack people for no reason! The media always shows a bias! If you don't get it, then there is no point in any discussion with you Tom!
I haven't yet seen a video where the police tried to "break" the circle by reasonable means. Even when the students weren't sitting, they were hardly threatening or an impenetrable barrier. The cops could have left at any time they chose and this video makes me feel they were "looking for an excuse" to use force.

The students who were sitting, the ones who got sprayed, were even less of a barrier. They could have been stepped over easily. Well, maybe not easily since the cops all look pretty portly. But this, at no point, was a call for extreme force. The officers still attacked these kids for no good reason.
I wrote a long opinion on this video posted by another person a few days ago ( Now, those saying that the officers were not detained because one officer was able to step back and forth over the seated students are not taking into account that this single officer did not have any detainees with him. Who can say that if he did have a detainee with him that the students would or would not have let him pass? I can't. I can however make an inference from the chants of "If you set them free, we will let you leave." That the only way all the officers were getting out of the circle was either by releasing the detainees or by force. Since they were making arrests they were not going to let the detainees go which only leaves one option. Given the choices available to them to clear a path pepper spray was the most effective least forceful method. Also, as many people have pointed out the students were warned multiple times force could and would be used, were given multiple warnings just prior, and had time to be warned by other students to protect their eyes, nose, and mouth.

+Jakob Rehlinger It may have been possible for the officers individually to step over the line, that is not in question. However, how easy would it have been to move a possibly non-compliant detainee over this same line of people. In my opinion it would have been very difficult. Then add to that the fact that the crowd was saying they would not let the officers go without releasing the detainees. Would they have resorted to physical contact to ensure that was the case? No one can say for sure, so the officers did what, in their opinion, would keep the most people safe.
these poor courageous citizens someone must show them the direction to protect and modernize without prejudice, recourse and Non-assumpsit.. stop hurting yourselves and ask somebody.. its no crime no fear. Blessiings all..
+greg gregory as someone who works in Uganda in the judicial system I am WELL aware of how much worse it is else where. That has made me less ok with this stuff back at home, not more ok with it.

I agree that we need not demonize police in general nor even pretend that this was a vicious act of malicious police brutality. It was a poor judgement call, at least, but that's not the point. It was a completely UNNECESSARY violent response, from those who wield police power you hold them to a higher standard because that is the only way Justice happens. I agree the protesters were breaking the law, so ARREST or FINE them according to the law.

Not saying these two things are the same, but many protesters were breaking the law in peaceful protests for civil rights in the 60's as well, did that make the use of fire hoses and dogs anymore acceptable?

you pepper spray people being physically aggressive and belligerent, not seated quiet protesters. period.
Looks like people need a refresher course in the First Amendment.

CONGRESS shall make no laws... it says nothing of the university or the state of California being able to make a law or rule that prohibits protesting or public assembly without a permit. Like it or not - I'm not saying I agree or disagree - but the Constitution says what it does for a reason, to keep the Federal government out of the affairs of the state, allowing the state to govern themselves. We've gotten so far away from that we've forgotten what the Constitution is put in place to do.

In addition, a group of people saying "We will let you leave if..." is a direct threat, plain and simple. Just because it's being said to police makes no difference. If one citizen said it to another citizen they call it kidnapping or unlawful detention and they go to jail.

You may not like police, you may not like guns, and you may not like what's going on with our country right now (I certainly don't) but if you are unable to be objective after seeing the actual video and what really happened then you are doing our country a disservice. Get off your soapbox, stop thinking like a Republican or a Democrat, and look at it as a neutral observer. The police acted professionally and did everything they could to disperse the crowd peacefully. The students did not. I fail to see how the police could be blamed for doing what they did.
Similarly, for those people saying "the police could have left at any time..."


C'mon folks, you are all smarter than that. If they were truly feeling threatened they would have had the legal justification to shoot to kill. That obviously didn't happen so give them the benefit of the doubt. However, there is nothing to say that it couldn't of happened. You never know how a group of hundreds will act and react.

There job is not to decide if and when they should do their job. They are there to protect and serve. Have there been cases where excessive force was used? Of course. But this was not one of them.
+Josh Sager you are right about what the First Amendment says and how far it reaches. However, you forgot to take the next step and check the California Constitution. I did this and posted one of it's sections that pertains to assemblies like this (it's been a while, so I don't blame you for not having read it earlier in the comments). Apparently, California gives even greater rights to such assemblies, not even requiring them to be peaceful. Likewise, the constitution in other places deals directly with schools, so there seems to be reason to believe that the California Constitution applies to California State Universities.

Likewise, I don't really see what the students did as anything but peaceful. They gave no threat of violence, though they rather loosely physically blocked the police (didn't look like it would have been hard to just step over the people and walk through, honestly). This kind of physical blockade is actually a very common tactic for peaceful protests, both in this country and around the world. Generally, though, when you see such a physical response to the protests you are dealing with some form of tyranny of various degrees (this we can call a light reaction. The alternative being beatings, shootings and killings in more extreme examples). Perhaps the police really didn't know what else to do, and had to fall back on what they knew. Unfortunately, that doesn't justify much. Especially if the police in this situation had no right to take the actions that got them into their predicament to begin with.
Saying someone who has a gun cannot be threatened is the statement of someone detached from reason. Can a thief be robbed? A healer healed?

A gun is part of the dressing of their station, as is the pepper spray and their vests.

Someone who is scared of, or who doesn't understand the use of a gun or its implementation shouldn't make assertions about its powers of augmentation on the human psyche. Because there is none. If the gun is your enemy, know your enemy and its purpose. Use reason and be heard.

Being surrounded by a group of people chanting F&*$ you, and bargaining with you (the police) about whether they will be allowed to leave, cut off from reinforcements, by an ever growing, encroaching crowd, is not a place I would want to be.

They showed amazing professionalism I believe. Read the body language and tone of the officers. You KNOW they DO NOT want to take action. These are not jack-booted thugs.

They did not wake up that morning, kiss their wives, and say, "today is a good day to pepper spray someone"

Thanks for the footage Guy!

...never rush to judgement.
+Brendan Foley - I'll take your word for the California Constitution issue (I don't live there) but at the very least it's important for everyone to understand that this is not a violation of the 1st Amendment. It might be allowed in California, but it has nothing to do with constitutional law as far as the federal government is concerned.

The students openly said "We will let you leave if..." Regardless of whether or not the students actually meant it is irrelevant. Regardless of whether or not the police could have/would have/should have stepped over the crowd is irrelevant. If me and six of my friends encircle you on the street ("peacefully") and tell you that we'll let you leave if you do something, that's unlawful detention, and I don't imagine for one second that you're going to NOT be scared to death that we might do something to you. I also don't imagine for one second that it's not illegal to do this, and that you would love the police to be there to help you out in that situation. It doesn't matter if you are or aren't a cop. Feelings and true intentions are not the point.

Believe me, the police know what else to do. Their job is not to leave when they feel like it. You say they "...had no right to take the actions that got them into their predicament to begin with" as if they were all sitting around at Starbucks, heard about the protest, and decided to inject themselves into the situation because they were bored. They were called in to do the job because someone higher up in the chain told them to. Whether or not the person/people that called them there made the right decision or not is not the point. They did everything they could to peacefully disperse the protesters, even going so far as to go up to each one and make sure they understood that if they stayed there, force "could" be used to remove them.

The police didn't use batons, they didn't use stun guns, they didn't start punching the crap out of random observers, and they didn't shoot anyone. They used the most passive means available to control the situation and keep everyone safe (including themselves).
For the record, 'Brutal' and 'Pepper Spray' should NEVER EVER EVER be used in the same sentence.

Brutal is putting your teeth on a curb and kicking the back of your head, and raping your wife while you watch. THAT is brutal.

IMO this society if fat and catered. We have no idea (myself included) what real brutality, and hardship is. If you did, I dont imagine you would ever use 'Pepper Spray' and 'Brutal' in the same sentence

Using pepper spray excessive? Maybe, we are discovering more and more as we go along.

I was initially upset by the use of pepper spray, after seeing a broader view of what happened, I am swaying.
A few people ask why the police didn't just walk over the line. It's a reasonable question. Here are two answers.

1. It would have been strategically unwise for one or two officers to step over or force their way through the circle. Then they would have been isolated from the rest of the group without support. You say the students were non-violent, but there was no guarantee they would stay that way, especially when confronted with force.

The officer only stepped over the line when several other officers arrived in support, so that if violence did erupt it could be dealt with on both sides of the circle. Look at the posture of the officers in the circle throughout the video, they are in defensive stance, ready to react if necessary. They did not react because it did not become violent, but again, there was no guarantee of this.

2. The officers had to transport detainees over or through the circle. This has been addressed by others previously.

I am just an IT guy who watched the video and has opinions about it. I am not against OWS. I intend to vote against any incumbent congressman on my ballot card. I am in support of at least some of the OWS ideas. But in this case, I think the students acted wrongly in threatening to detain the officers, and the officers acted quite reasonably. Nobody got beat or bloodied. I wish the pepper spray had not been necessary, but I'm not sure what the alternative was once the circle was formed.
Amazing we havent seen this footage until now. Officers arrest people, then get surrounded by students who refuse to move. Repeatedly warned they continue to impede the officers. They get pepper sprayed and all we see on the news is the spraying, not the students surrounding the police. So wack.
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That is exactly what the students were doing. Police had no reason to get involved in the first place. This is a guaranteed right as a U.S. citizen. It is not meant to be convenient in any manner.
+Steve Kellener Except the owner/administrator of the property (State of California/Campus Administrators) have the right to allow or not allow protests like this to take place. It is my understanding that the Administration was OK with the protest but was asking for the removal of the tents. The Officers were there to enforce the decision to remove the tents. They were going to allow the protest to continue and had no intentions of stopping it.

Edit: Also, I may have missed it but, where in this is Congress trying to make a law to prohibit this protest from taking place?
Allow or not allow? Did you read what you just wrote? Do you understand what a protest is? Again, the Bill of Rights guarantees your right to peaceably assemble - at a moments notice - no permits required. This is not a parade. And it does not mean only when it's convenient for the campus administration. Fed law supersedes state law.
the point is pepper spray, or rubber bullets or riot shields, are not punishments for crimes +Matt Moore they are a means for controlling people who are violent. there was no violence, or aggression that warranted pepper spray, the crime being committed is completely irreverent.
+Jakob Rehlinger WILL EVERYONE please watch the whole unedited 40+ minutes? You want to keep out bias? Then you want to see this without edits and with as much footage as possible. Now you can say, "Oh, I don't have time", but then you don't really have a basis to debate if you don't know the whole story now, do you? So watch it here:
Occupy Davis Part 1
Thats part one, at around 14 minutes, there are two more, all from gsanchez9457 labelled part two and part three.
You see clearly what the officers where doing. You hear clearly what they were saying to the students individually. You see and hear the warnings via bullhorn promptly before the pepper spraying. You also see clearly that ONE KID was causing most of the problem. He was the one starting the chants. He was the one that did the "mic check" and such chants as "fuck the police, from Davis to Greece". Since the incident, UC Davis students have been saying that kid? Not a UC Davis student. But watch for yourself!
+Steve Kellener I repeat, can I hold a protest inside the Library of Congress? How about at 2am? How about inside the Oval Office? No, no where anywhere is location protected.
If only they had pepper spray at the Boston Tea Party! We'd be following Parliamentary Law.
I'm wondering...if the students were surrounding the police in a threatening, aggressive manner, why is it that the new-to-the-scene cops were able to pull up, walk through the crowd, ready and shoot their his weapon without any resistance from any of them? How is it that a single officer is able to casually walk up to the students and hose them down like they were a row of cabbage without being impeded by a single protester?
It seems to me that +Brendan Foley and +David Haddad have not even watched the video.

You guys mock the idea that the police were being detained because you say that they could just step over the line of protestors. Well... COULD THEIR POLICE CARS JUST STEP OVER THE LINE TOO?!?

C'mon, you guys are shamelessly dodging the real issue, which is that the police could not just walk away and leave their cruisers behind. They had cars full of arrested protestors and the remaining protestors wouldn't let their cars through. If the people would not move voluntarily... WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE THE POLICE DO?!?

They told the people they needed to move... they informed them that if they did not move voluntarily, the police would need to use force... and when the people refused to cooperate, the police used the least amount of force possible to break up that chain of protestors. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT FROM THEM?!? They can't just magically float their cars over the protestors, or use jedi mind tricks to get people to move peacefully. When you refuse to allow the police to do their work, pepper spray is the NICEST thing they could use on you.
+Marla Hughes Regardless of whether they were new to the scene or not...<eye roll here cuz really? is that your point?> the officers were obviously not threatened nor were the students aggressive. Hence, the use of force was unnecessary and illegal according to the Use of Force laws.
+Steve Kellener - Steve, read the Constitution. Your understanding of constitutional law (especially the 1st amendment) is 100% absolutely, undeniably wrong, regardless of how you feel about the issue. I'll say it again, The Constitution does not give citizens the right to assemble or give free speech! It says that Congress - meaning the federal government - shall make no laws to suppress those "rights." It says nothing of the state's ability to do so.
+Steve Kellener Actually, State Law supersedes Federal UNLESS it is expressly granted to the Federal in the Constitution. Or have you not read the entirety of the Bill of Rights (see number 10.) Now, on to what I wrote and the understanding of a protest. According to the Fact Sheet published by UC Davis Chancellor ( overnight camping is prohibited in the quad. This is what the Officers were enforcing. They were there to remove the tents. Also, my comment about allowing/not allowing a protest was more towards the rights of a property owner which are slightly less restrictive in this case.
+Cheri Seymour - You do realize that the website you are sourcing contains content that was gleaned through Massad Ayoob, one of the leading firearms experts in the country, right? In other words, this information was not taken directly from any law on the books in any state or by the federal government, but rather by one guy's interpretation of another guy's interpretation. If you had read the entire site you would see that the "State Laws" section clearly indicates that the Use of Force mandate is not an actual broad-stroked law that is the same everywhere in the U.S.

And again, the fact that students were surrounding the police and essentially demanding that their friends be released otherwise they will not be "let go" constitutes aggressive behavior. I'm sorry that this is so difficult for you to accept, but that's the truth. I'll state my example again: if a group of six guys forms a circle around you on the street and tells you they will "let you go" if you do what they tell you to do, that's against the law. The fact that so many see that it's unacceptable for this to happen in one case (when it's happening to you) as opposed to another (when it's happening to police officers trying to do their job) doesn't make sense.
Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963), in an 8-to-1 decision, the high court overturned the breach of peace convictions of 180 black students who had peacefully marched to the state capitol to protest discrimination. The police stopped the demonstration and arrested the students because they were afraid that the 200-300 who gathered to watch the demonstration might cause a riot. The court held the state law unconstitutionally over-broad because it penalized the exercise of free speech, peaceable assembly, and the right of petition for a redress of grievances. A disorderly crowd, or the fear of one, cannot be used to stop a peaceful demonstration or cancel the right of peaceable assembly.
+Steve Kellener If you choose to assemble (peaceably or not) on my front lawn... I have the right to demand you get off my property or I will call the cops. It is my private property, and your right to assemble does not give you the right to trespass onto my property.

The school grounds are the property of the school, and the administrators at that institution have the right to specify how it may be used. If they choose not to allow camping on school grounds, they are within their rights to have violators arrested. The protestors are welcome to speak out on school grounds... just no sleeping there.

Those who refused to remove their tents were justifiably arrested, and the others who attempted to impede the officers ability to enforce the law were justifiably pepper sprayed (absolute minimal use of force) to get them to comply... If the police had had the means, I think the people sitting in that line should have been arrested too... but alas they got off easy with only some red eyes for an hour.
+Steve Kellener The Bill of Rights DOES give you the right to assemble at a moments notice -- no permits required... from the Federal Govt. But as others have pointed out, State law supersedes Federal Law except on Federal property. And states DO have the right to require permits...

Nearly every Tea Party rally that I've witnessed had to go through a lengthy permit process... why is OWS exempt from that?
+Cheri Seymour There is a difference in might cause a riot and verbally threatening by saying in a way "If you don't do what we say, we will hold you captive"

Again, as others have said, they were not there to stop the assembly either, just to remove the tents.
+Cheri Seymour - You're 100% right, if this happened in South Carolina. But this happened in California. Granted, if this ever went to court then the suit you mention could possibly be used to help establish precedent in swaying the court's decision, but just because the high court in SC ruled one way doesn't mean that applies to every state. That's the law; you don't have to like it, but you can argue until you're blue in the face and still be 100% wrong so far as the Constitution is concerned.
+Cheri Seymour "A disorderly crowd, or the fear of one, cannot be used to stop a peaceful demonstration or cancel the right of peaceable assembly."

You might also take note that the police did NOT try to stop UC protestors from demonstrating or assembling, and they did NOT seem to fear that the crowd would riot. They merely were called upon by the campus to enforce the "No Camping" policy on the school grounds. When some protestors attempted to prevent the police from leaving with their arrested friends, that is when the police had no choice but to use minimal force so that they could continue their job, and take those arrested to the police station.
I swear... the people arguing against the police actions in this situation could not be more irrational.

Everybody just put down the joints, go drink a few cups of coffee, and then come back when your heads have cleared...
+Brian Overholt I swear... the people arguing against the constitutional right to peaceably assemble in this situation could not be more irrational.

Everybody just put down the gold-plated coffee mug, step outside, and get some fresh air.
+Alvin Brinson We are not arguing about the Constitutional right to peaceably assemble. We are merely saying that the protesters were illegally camping, the police were called in by the Administration to remove the tents and only the tents, some protesters attempted to keep the police from performing their duty which is an illegal act and were arrested for it. Then other protesters attempted to block the police from leaving again keeping them from performing their duty. They were then told if they did not clear the path force may be used. They refused to comply and acknowledged that force may be used. Then when the police used the force they said they would everyone is trying to seek refuge under a law that does not apply. The original intent of the police was to not remove any of the protesters who were in fact demonstrating their first amendment right. They were forced however to arrest some who became belligerent and began acting illegally.
+Alvin Brinson -- See? This is exactly what I mean...

NOBODY is denying the protestors their right to assemble. The POLICE didn't even try to prevent them from assembling... only from illegally CAMPING, which is not one of their constitutional rights.

It was the PROTESTORS that were trying to obstruct the police... not the other way around. The police were doing their job of removing tents and arresting those who refused to cooperate... and then the other protestors tried to keep the police cars from leaving with those arrested. That's called OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, and their rights to assembly and free speech do not afford them the right to obstruct the police in their duties. THAT was when the pepper spray came out...

Your arguments only betray the fact that you have not listened to, or understood, ANY of the things being said here. You are arguing against a position that NOBODY has taken. You are not engaging in a discussion, you are just talking to yourself.
@Brian Overholt: An individual's right to assembly does not have a time limit on it. If a group of individuals want to hold a peaceful assembly for 9 months in a public location, that is their right.
This is not the America that I grew up in - I am ashamed of what our nation has come to.
+Chris Bieneman You're right, the right to assembly has no time limit on it. The protestors can come back every day for as many days as they want.

But the right to assemble must be exercised within the bounds of the rest of the law. For example, you cannot assemble on private property without permission. And in the case of UC Davis, it is illegal to pitch tents and reside there overnight without a permit. That is why the University Chancelor called the police.

They can protest every day, but they cannot camp there without a permit. That is in violation of the law, and it's an abuse of the right to assemble.
I find it somewhat ironic that the main anti #OWS protester voice in this thread is +Dave Slack When I scrolled over his name, it shows he is from Morgan Stanley, one of the largest U.S. banks.
Now Dave, stop trying to pretend the police were somehow being held against their will. If that was the case, they would have used the pepper spray against the folks encircling them, not the folks on the ground. Also, the calm demeanor of the officer who misused the high potency crowd control pepper spray designed for use at a distance at close range did not show any signs that he was threatened by the crowd. Nothing the protesters did in any way justified the use of peper spray.
Hi, +Kevin Mackett, who works at "pearson education" and has attended schools in Arizona, looking for "friends" and "networking." Shall I make assumptions about you based on your public profile information? I'm just an IT guy who happens to work for Morgan Stanley. I'm not "anti #OWS protester." Let's drop the ad hominem and the condescension, hmm?

The officer used pepper spray only on the people sitting on the sidewalk that led to the police cars. If he had done more than this, I would have viewed this as excessive. I'm glad the officer appeared calm. If he were doing this in anger it would be unprofessional and probably dangerous.

Clearly your opinion about the justification of pepper spray differs from mine, Kevin. That's ok with me, because neither of us is going to change the world's views about this with our words. You can stop being threatened by my opinion.

This video has nothing to do with OWS and everything to do with police/protester interaction.

I'm here because when I first saw the videos of pepper spray use, I found them deplorable. I could not believe that an officer would use pepper spray like that. Later I heard that the students had surrounded the officers. Yesterday I finally saw this video, which, to me, explains very well why the pepper spray was used. I think it's very interesting to see and discuss the rest of the story. Critical thinking is important when consuming media.
+Kevin Mackett, reading your post again. You state that the spray was used against the folks on the ground, not the folks encircling them. Actually, the people on the ground were part of the group encircling the officers. They were not the ones being arrested. You should watch the video, which clearly shows this.

One mistake I made earlier was believing that the officer who did the spraying came from outside the circle. Another video (one of the first that came out) actually shows the officer stepping over the people sitting on the ground before spraying them. Apparently the guy who did all the talking on the megaphone who was shaking his can of spray after talking to the students (all visible in the video) was the guy who stepped over the students sitting on the sidewalk after reinforcements arrived.

This is why I value this discussion. It wasn't obvious in the video Guy posted, but it was in another video, as +Scott Curtis helpfully pointed out. I'm interested in knowing all the facts as I form my opinion.
+Dave Slack I probably should have left out the part about Morgan Stanley. I apologize if that was out of line in your opinion. I do have to say that if we were discussing something relevant to my employer as #OWS is relevant to Morgan Stanley, it would be... relevant.

So, you basically didn't adress what I said directly rebutting your numerous posts:
"stop trying to pretend the police were somehow being held against their will. If that was the case, they would have used the pepper spray against the folks encircling them, not the folks on the ground."

Your reasoning for why it was OK to pepper spray non violent protestors who were no threat to the police or the public safety varies a bit in your posts from "detaining the police officers", being trapped to being prevented from "fulfilling their orders... arresting students who were assembling."

Were they really threatened or just non violently prevented from arresting non violent people? The threatened argument that is being aligned with this video across various spots on the net could be argued if it were even close to true. The actions of the officer spraying the seated students instead of the others "detaining" them shows that your later argument is likely the case. Using peperspray against standard police training as well as the manufacture's intended use for high potency crowd control from a distance is not acceptable if they were being prevented from "fulfilling their orders... arresting students who were assembling."

I should note that there are two sides in this stand off: #OWS protesters and police. You have clearly taken a side on this that the police action using pepper spray on non-violent protesters was justified. Therefore, I feel that my description of you being "anti #OWS protester" is accurate.
+Kevin Mackett, I'm not here to support #OWS or the police. I'm here because public opinion (including mine) was against the pepper spraying of the students, yet after seeing the video, the story appears very different, with students threatening to detain police officers. There seems to be a serious misalignment between what was reported and what happened. I'm interested in the discussion around that.

The police were kept from leaving. Evidence is a) the circling of the officers by the students, b) the chanting of the students that the officers could leave if they let the students go, and c) the "mic-check" negotiations that occured.

Could the police have left? Yes. There are a number of methods available, some more violent, some less. They could have released the students and probably have been allowed to go. They could have tried to force their way through the circle, which may or may not have ended violently. They could have physically moved the students seated on the sidewalk. It appears the officer in charge chose to subdue the students with pepper spray before attempting to move through the circle, and did so only after reinforcements arrived outside the circle.

Good choice or not? That's a matter of opinion. I don't know anything about the proper use of pepper spray, whether the distance was too close, or how much it hurts.

I do think, though, that the students were wrong in circling and threatening to detain the police officers.

How was this reported? "Police officer pepper sprays non-violent protesters who were just sitting on the ground."

What really happened? The students surrounded the police officers and threatened not to let them leave unless they released the arrested students. At some point, an officer used pepper spray on some students. That's much different than what was reported.
Hey +Dave Slack

The video evidence supports your argument that the #OWS student protestors were pepper sprayed because the police were being prevented from "fulfilling their orders... arresting students who were assembling."

The "The police were kept from leaving" argument is big pile of BS.
+Brian Overholt It actually doesn't matter if the protesters were breaking the law. What matters is if the police were in a situation that nescessitated the use of force. We don't shoot jaywalkers, but we don't allow people to stab police and leave them defenseless. The specific section that governs California police is California Penal Code sections 835 and 835a. They lay out the requirement of reasonable force, not just lawlessness. Can you with a straight face claim Lt. Pike used reasonable force?
To everyone saying "what else could the cops have done?" the answer is simple: walk up to the students, notify them that they are under arrest and to stand up, and if they refuse have two cops drag them back to be arrested. It gives the protesters the option to avoid the resisting arrest charge. Only if the crowd becomes violent do you have other officers use the pepper spray in a targeted fashion.

I have no problem with arresting the protesters. If they have demands, then file a lawsuit and plead your case to a judge, not to the officers. But I do have a problem with police using excessive force. The fact that the officers suggested shooting the students, even if it was just with rubber bullets, shows a complete disconnect with the appropriate level of response.
+David Steinmuller -- Of course you can't see my face, but I assure you it is straight when I say: There is no use of force more minimal than pepper spray when it comes to moving people who refuse to cooperate.

If they would not move on their own, his next best option to pepper spray would be to simply grapple with them and try to pull them apart. I guarantee people would have gotten injured if they'd tried that, and it may have escalated the situation between the officers and those whom they're grappling with.

In the interest of the officers' own safety, and the safety of those they were attempting to move, it is much better for them to incapacitate them with a non-injurious pepper spray in order to reduce resistance, reduce the amount of physical force needed to break up the line, and avoid the potential for serious injury.

... Pepper spray is the kindest thing the police could use on those that are attempting to obstruct their ability to perform their duty. People are pepper sprayed all the time for much less than what these protestors did... and with much less warning.
+David Steinmuller Since you are prone to using extreme examples. Hows this? Lets say a police officer was at a crime scene arresting someone and a HUGE GROUP of people got in the police officers way? Physically blocked that officer from transporting the criminal?
What are the officers options according to you?
1. Let the perp go?
2. Stand there for an infinite amount of time? or lastly
3. Called in enough officers, a resource they do not have, to arrest ever single one of those people.

I just want to note that I was planning on making an extreme example, but this actually is exactly what happened, isn't it?
+Kevin Mackett "You can leave, if you let them go." Those are the protesters words, not the police officers. I don't see how it could even be disputed that the police were not being in one or another detained.
+Brandon Mitchell With what officers? There were, what? 20? 30 officers on scene? How many people was each officer supposed to arrest?
'You can leave if you let them go' is an exercise in free speech and not illegal. The Chancellor approved the days' protest; the students were protesting police brutality as they had been pushed around with billy clubs previously. The school asked that the tents be removed so the lawn could be tended; then the tents could be restored. There had been no camping on the campus to my knowledge. If the police forces have the rights to take aggressive action to people for what they say, then where are our rights? If someone flips you off in traffic that could be construed as a threat; should the police pull the driver over and pepper spray them? And having been sprayed with both pepper spray and tear gas at various political protests I'd have to say that a water cannon is 'kinder' +Brian Overholt . Some protesters were still coughing blood forty five minutes later. Anyway it's a moot point as the Bill of Rights is being tossed out along with the Constitution in the USA.
Cops encircled by students. Students yelling "F... the police". Students chanting "If you let them go, we will let you leave". Number 1, cops encircled by students, wouldn't you feel threatened by people encircling you and giving you an ultimatum? Number 2, Students yelling "F... the police". A clear threat, just words but a clear threat. Police have to take this seriously because they're the ones who have to act responsibly in the situation. if they don't take it seriously and try to walk out and violence ensues, they are wrong. Number 3, Students chanting "If you let them go, we will let you leave". the students were obviously projecting to the police that theyre only option was to let them go. police had to assume that if they tried to leave, the crowd would stop them. Again, unlikely, but they have to act responsibly. The cops did everything right here. They took there time. they told protesters what was going to happen, they gave them time to digest it and act accordingly. The cops needed to transport the arrested individuals to the police car. The students were not letting them, they acted accordingly. Police brutality is when police begin assaulting people for no reason. This was police telling people to clear the walkway to move the detained. All students on that walkway had to do was move 10 feet to avoid pepper spraying. they were given ample time to do so. they did not and were handled accordingly.
+Jonathan Henry So now "disobedience" justifies the use of force? The only reason the police were moving was to force "obedience" - without the effort to force "obedience", there would be NO confrontation.

What has this country come to that we treat citizens as "disobedient children", who can then be physically punished? Is this REALLY what you want the country to come to?

What difference, OTHER than "obedience", did the police intended action make?
Couldn't the cops just step over the students? It was a one person sitting line. Just step in between them.
Yes, +Jim Budzynski it's clear we MUST crush all possible disobedience with as much violence as possible. How can a society tolerate ANY form of disobedience?

After all, when a child is disobedient, is it not appropriate to pull out the Bullwhip and beat him into submission? Submission and obedience are the cornerstones of any society.

By all means, we must crush all forms of disagreement with the government's choices. It is not up to citizens to make choices and make law; it is for the Government and it's "Law EnFORCEment" arms to make all such decisions!

So please, let's continue to see ALL forms of disobedience as deserving punishment, pain and violence. What might have happened if the police had left these protestors there? Why, they may have gotten away with being disobedient!, No, sir, that's one thing society cannot abide - disobedience!
+Tracy Hall Are you serious? They were trying to get to their police cruiser to put the protesters they had arrested in the car. the crowd was not letting them get to it. And, YES, if people are acting like disobedient children, they should be treated as such. Those 10 people on the sidewalk could have moved 10 feet to make an opening for the police to get through and continue on with their protest.They chose not to. And, pepper spray is hardly force. they were mad uncomfortable for an hour of their life. Sorry. 150 students encircling police telling them to let their friends go and THEN you can leave probably made the police uncomfortable to. Sounds like a fair trade to me. I'm tired of the liberals (not all of them) who have the ME attitude and no one or nothing else matters. I have a right to do this, I have a right to do that. You absolutely do, UNTIL it affects someone else or the civil order.
+Dennis Do They could have. The problem is this. If they had stepped over them and one of those students became violent because of it, the situation would have become vastly worse. they did the right thing by not doing anything that could possibly provoke anyone until they had to. Again, the students were given ample warning and asked multiple times to move. They did not.
+Tracy Hall -- Attempting to obstruct a police officer from arresting someone is a crime. Not disobedience. Disobedience is when you're on public property and you refuse to move along when asked (though they can still arrest you for that). But when you not only refuse to cooperate, but attempt to prevent the police from enforcing the law... that is obstruction of justice and it is a crime.
+Charlie Harris You do understand the language we call english. "You can leave if you let them go" means.. You can leave.. IF you let them go.. I don't understand how someone can not understand that. How about we frame it different. If you let them go.. then you can leave.. Okay.. how about this way? Lets strip it down even more.
We will not allow you to leave unless to do what we tell you.
Thats what they were telling the police officers. How can you not see that as a threat? I don't understand what about this phrase that you don't understand to be a threat. I know I am saying the same thing over and over, but you don't seem to get it.
And flipping someone the bird literally translates to "F** you", therefore not a threat. However if you threaten a police officer in the line of duty, you should absolutely be arrested because guess what? THAT IS ILLEGAL and arrest for such has been established as lawful and not covered by the first amendment.
+Jonathan Henry +Brian Overholt Quite serious. Why were the officers trying to get to their cruisers (and I've seen the video, they were not obstructed)? Because they had arrested protestors. What was the "crime" the protestors had committed? None, just disobedience. No one harmed, no property damage, no threat to anyone's safety or property. Just disobedience. The protestors did not "prevent the police from enforcing the law" - because there was no law being enforced; just punishing disobedient people.

10 protestors sitting in a sidewalk were obstructing? Could the officers have stepped around? err... yeah, they could. Are our "safety officers" now so forlorn that any small impediment stymies them? Is that a reason to inflict such violence upon citizens?

If you wish to live in a society which demands absolute unquestioning obedience to any order, law-based or not, from any officer or government official.... well, then, I have to assume you do not wish to live in the society that the "founding fathers" envisioned for us. Very sad.
Oh well. It happened. Go home. Go to class. Where ever you should be, just shut the hell up. People deserved what they got.
Peaceful demonstration = lawful
Preventing police from executing an arrest = unlawful

Seems like the demonstration turned lawful to unlawful at the point when the protesters would not allow the police to get to the their car. Kids, I could be wrong but I think we still have a court system where the people arrested would have had a fair trial. I'm pretty sure that peaceful protesters don't get to choose whether a person gets a fair trial or not.

I don't fully agree with the use of pepper spray on the people sitting on the ground, but on the other hand, how else could the police make the arrest?

I think I mostly agree with the pepper spray, I guess I would spray your ass too if you prevented me from getting to my car.
Police arresting individuals who are committing no crime at all, let alone a violent or dangerous act = unlawful

(a) the police created the angry confrontation by arresting students who were breaking no laws - note that these arrests are NOT prevented.
(b) students were then verbally protesting the illegal action by the police.
(c) a small number of students blocked 15 feet of sidewalks
(d) Police, who apparently are incapable of WALKING AROUND 15 students sitting, get upset.
(e) Police proceed AROUND THE STUDENTS, and take those arrested to their cruisers
(f) Police RETURN to the students they WENT AROUND, and use pepper spray to disperse them.

By your logic, the police can make ANY activity illegal by arresting ANYONE on NO CHARGE, then claiming they are being prevented from making an arrest. Quite some power you give to the police.

You'd pepper spray anyone who "prevents" you from going to your car by sitting still in a path, so you have to step around? I'd hate to see you when you have a bad day...
+Matt Moore No, what they should do is arrest, or use force as needed the people actually obstructing them in a meaningful way. Even if you assume that crow is actively stopping them, the people they sprayed with arms linked on the ground aren't.
+Tracy Hall I dont know what to say. You're either stupid or ignorant. Im sorry I have to use those words but I dont know what else to use. The people who were arrested were setting up tents to camp. That was not allowed. The permit was not for that and the university would not issue a permit allowing camping. they were asked to take down there tents and what not and refused. Thats why they were arrested. Read the story. It was only a couple of them but regardless, they were arrested.

The police were encircled by the protesters, it wasnt just 15 feet of them.
Of note: Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
@ Jonathan Henry - Following your logic the Arab Spring protesters, or the civil rights marchers in Dr. Kings day should have just packed up and gone home because the authorities told them that protesting was "not allowed". Take a look around you my friend... Voting for either the Democrats or the Republicans is not working... more importantly - just following the rules as you suggest may be the most dangerous thing we as a nation can do at this time.
Add a comment...